Global Warming: For Experts Only

One unmistakable sign of agw is the signature of the way the upper atmosphere is warming. "The" atmosphere is composed of several "layers". The statistical signature of the way the atmosphere warms is a key fingerprint, of what the cause for the warming is.

This short lecture explains it nicely:

 
Last edited:
Classic cherry picking of short term (data?) -within a planet life of 4.6 billion years so far. Fool number 3 has arrived.

If someone farts, a really really vegany smelly fart and wafts it about in your car saying "woo wee, that a wet-un" with their hand, I'm sure you will not react.

Considering the whole lifespan of the car, it is nothing :)

DK-1 is you new fragrance.
 
Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun. Why? Because Venus has an atmosphere with a high concentration of CO2.

There is almost no controversy about the equation I gave above. The only debate is the value of λ.

If you think that there is even the slightest possibility that this equation is wrong you can try this simple experiment.Take 2 plastic bottles and fill them 30% with water. Put an alkaseltzer tablet in one to generate carbon dioxide. Put the bottles equidistant to a heat source such as a light bulb. Measure the water temperature after an hour or so. Add a second alkaseltzer and see what difference it makes. The difference in temperature should be roughly as predicted by the equations above. If not either you are doing the experiment wrong or you are on your way to a Nobel prize...
Wrong. Venus has an incredibly thick atmosphere and traps the heat from the Sun.

The atmosphere traps the heat. No atmosphere....No heat...
 
I am a conservative who believes in conserving the environment.
In the past I volunteered my professional time to clean bay and ocean groups.

I agree with your statement here... entirely. Very strong point.
For the market to efficiently distribute resources and for price to be a good signal the price should include all the costs. Many times I have argued nuclear is improperly priced because we have not figured out how to store nuclear waste properly.





Ok can I hazard another angle on this to to see if both sides might find common ground in one area?

Regardless climate change, is using oil and other fossils like we are now a good idea?

I read that about 70% of oil is used a fuel, 30% for making most chemicals & paints, plastics, fertiliser (nudge nudge) and the list is very long. 10 to 15 calories of fossil fuel energy are used to create 1 calorie of food.

As traders there must be some appreciation that oil/gas & coal are a VASTLY undervalued asset. The illusion that oil for example is cheap is a fantasy of epic proportions.

As traders we might also consider say, how much of the US's defense budget is and has been spent on protecting oil supplies?

How accurate is this statement from an article in 2010? I have not done the numbers but you get the gist:
"According to estimates, we spend nearly half of our entire $685 billion defense budget protecting and ensuring the free flow of the approximately 730 million barrels of oil that we import annually from the Persian Gulf.

And given the realities created by such terrifically large numbers, this means we spend an additional $469.00 on each of these units in order to bring them safely to market.

So while we can all now happily fill up at a mere $2.70 per gallon, the actual price of that gas is much higher, once you figure in the cost of the defense dollars necessary to bring it all to market."

We will be on the planet for a bit but we are using finite resources like there is no tomorrow, literally. Our population is growing exponentially and people keep looking at their shoes as if that is going to magically not screw us very soon. Technology might save our ass but..

A conservative in the true sense should do the math. Any conservative who does will realise that there are stupendously compelling reasons to put huge effort into going past burning fossils for heat. Even if there is no climate issue, it is an essential thing to do anyway.
 
Last edited:
1.You missed a very large contributor... underwater vents and volcanoes.

the oceans have been warming since the last ice age.
change in oceans temps lead change in atmosphere co2.

Ocean warming can be caused by sun and underwater vents and volcanoes.

In fact the vents and volcanoes are melting ice at the poles as we speak and warming the Indian Ocean right now. Which is where most of the warming in the ocean and therefore on earth is located.

2. There have been numerous recent peer reviewed studies...that have shown the sun and the tides do lead and therefore seem to drive temperature.

WeTodd has been presenting them almost monthly here.
Do a search.

From what I can tell, the only rational explanation left for the warming of the earth and therefore the rise in sea levels, is the burning of fossil fuels. It is not the amount of energy reaching the earth, it is the amount of energy being trapped by the earth. The earth has become the ultimate roach motel: Energy can come in. But it can't get out.

This short article debunks most of the usual exogenous explanations given by deniers:


"Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature.

Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008.


Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASAGISS. AnnualTotal Solar Irradiance(thin light blue) with 11 year moving average ofTSI(thick dark blue).TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007.TSIfrom 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.



The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980.

Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño)heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C.Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C.

FigFAQ5_1-1_smaller.png

Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a)Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to theEl Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5)

Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result.


Basic rebuttal written by Larry M, updated by Sarah

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
 
I am a conservative who believes in conserving the environment.
In the past I volunteered by professional time to clean bay and ocean groups.

I agree with your statement here... entirely. Very strong point.
For the market to efficiently distribute resources and for price to be a good signal the price should include all the costs. Many times I have argued nuclear is improperly priced because we have not figured out how to store nuclear waste properly.

And I will add that there are many other reasons to move away from oil & coal beyond "climate change". Oil imports have a relationship with geo-dependence on unfriendly regimes (e.g. Venezuela). Oil, natural gas, and coal are very dirty fuels in terms of extraction pollution. Coal causes significant hard particle pollution when used (even with scrubbers).

There are host of reasons to move towards green energy such as solar and wind over oil, natural gas, and coal. Supporters of green energy should focus on these issues which are obvious rather than "climate change" when directing the discussion about "going green". Building their focus points around "climate change" is a path that hinders the adoption of green energy and leads to resistance from nearly half the population.
 
1. your video... assumed earth is a closed system. As I said before we have co2 sinks and the ability to off gas Co2. So we could find man made co2 in the atmosphere... but it could have just displaced naturally occurring co2.

CO2 levels trail changes in ocean temps.

2. we know that co2 in the upper atmosphere acts as a thermostat according to NASA.
It prevents some of the suns warming energy from getting to the earth...
I just linked to that recent proof a few pages ago.
Your video did not seem to take that into account.




One unmistakable sign of agw is the signature of the way the upper atmosphere is warming. "The" atmosphere is composed of several "layers". The statistical signature of the way the atmosphere warms is a key fingerprint, of what the cause for the warming is.

This short lecture explains it nicely:

 
Back
Top